RES 5530: Race, Class, and Gender in Literacy Research (Spring 2009)

After reading the Hinchman article last week, my greatest concern about qualitative research was how the researcher constructs meaning. While I recognize the tremendous benefit of a qualitative approach to provide insight for why some students struggle with literacy, I can understand why some decision makers reject this type of research deeming it too subjective to truly be used as a guide for program direction. Although it has been stated that qualitative inquiry requires the researcher to state her own biases or perspective, when I read Henry’s declaration that her “outsearch” was framed from a critical Black feminist perspective I wondered how much her own agenda would drive the process and influence the students. I am coming to realize that to some degree both actions are acceptable. But I also consider Maher and Tetreault’s (1994) assertion “that in the classroom voices are ‘fashioned’ not ‘found,’ from ongoing conversations with each other.” Would Henry really allow these young women to “speak up” and “speak out?”

In the section about Nadia and Alice, Henry states that she “tried to raise Black feminist questions and issues throughout the course of the workshop.” I wish some of the excerpts of the transcripts were included in this article. However, Henry’s inclusion of the play Nadia and Alice created demonstrates a commitment to allow these students to truly express themselves even if the researcher desires a different “voice” for the students.

For me, Henry’s greatest demonstration of respect for these young women was her willingness to follow Tamisha’s instructions to “Turn that thing off!” Tamisha spoke out, perhaps in a more literal way than Henry intended, and Tamisha found a voice. Henry's literacy research became exactly what she envisioned--social activism--as these students were allowed to transgress. Just as Henry was willing to allow these girls to discuss what mattered most to them at that moment, it is when I am willing to venture away from the task at hand in order to seize a teachable moment that I may teach more than at any other time. It is at that moment that I allow my students to “speak up” and may inspire them to “speak out.”

I really appreciated Henry’s concluding remarks and came away from my reading convinced that I, too, can approach qualitative inquiry from my own perspective and still be true to myself and my students. Henry’s comment that “a commitment to students’ voices and to collective curricular and pedagogical decisions necessitates a willingness to allow our researcher aims and agendas to be reshaped or even die off” resonates with me as I consider her willingness not to count her project as academic research. Henry is truly a teacher at heart! And yet, her decisions also make her a more credible researcher. Henry would rather sacrifice the research than the student. I wonder how many times good teachers are forced to sacrifice students because of research—not theirs, but research that comes to them in the forms of expectations based upon test scores and not students. The more I learn about qualitative research and realize the benefits of it, the more I cannot understand why its findings would not be given more consideration in guiding educational policy. After all, we are teaching people. If their voices are not heard, why would they ever speak up or speak out?

Lisa Rasey